# SLOP4408 — Week 7: Challenge the System

Campus / printable lab pack · Semester 1, 2027

## The task

Make a records system useful to authorised people while preventing actions outside their responsibilities.

In-person teaching is preferred. The paper route is a complete conceptual activity when apparatus is unavailable; online students use the equivalent controls and keep the same learning record.

The investigation, experiment, agreement or revision is this week's practical output. A staged field handover is optional and cannot replace the reasoning record.

## Learning outcomes

- Derive expected decisions from governing clauses.
- Test useful and prohibited operations and diagnose discrepancies.
- Separate a behaviour repair from an authorised policy revision.

## Equipment

Role cards, action/object cards and the printable matrix; optionally the local browser simulation. No network target, credentials or external service is needed.

## Facilitator setup

Print the intended policy and a separate faulty policy. Assign one student to propose requests and another to act as the rule interpreter; rotate roles after the repair.

## Complete supplied rules

**Where to find the named materials:** These labels identify the supplied material on this page and in the combined campus pack; they are not separate files you need to locate. **CY-01** is the intended role/action policy. **CY-02** is the faulty starting matrix and the nine decisions to test against that policy. The maintenance hold is the published transfer condition.

- Roles: observer, technician, registrar. Actions: read shared records, service the cart, certify the archive.
- Every role may read. Only technician may service; only registrar may certify. Other combinations are denied.
- The starting matrix is supplied by the activity. Derive expectations from the mandate and compare them with that matrix; record discrepancies yourself.
- Repair all nine role/action decisions and test both allowed and denied actions.
- Transfer: a published maintenance hold suspends technician service; read access and registrar certification remain unchanged.
- All requests operate within the local fictional simulation.

## Two-hour schedule

These are the teaching session's time blocks, not six compulsory game objectives. Adjust timing as needed; reasoning matters more than speed.

| Time | Activity |
| --- | --- |
| 0–10 minutes | Read the mandate and derive expected decisions before seeing observed results. |
| 10–30 minutes | Study the alternate embargo charter and identify why its table cannot be copied. |
| 30–60 minutes | Test the assigned matrix, record discrepancies and repair unsupported decisions. |
| 60–80 minutes | Exchange matrices and independently retest useful access and prohibitions. |
| 80–105 minutes | Apply the maintenance hold, preserving the first table and its authority. |
| 105–120 minutes | Assemble before/after evidence, coverage limits and the effect on A2. |

## Worked example · a different scenario

The separate observatory charter gives readers research access, maintainers equipment service without research access, and custodians research access plus release approval. Its faulty table wrongly allows maintainer reading and blocks reader reading. The demonstrator corrects those two decisions, preserves the other seven and tests the complete table. A later release hold suspends only custodian approval. This is a different charter from your assigned recovery policy: derive each table from its own governing document.

[Watch this separate example and inspect its finished record](/demonstrations/lab-07/).

The example explains a method. Its completed decisions are not the assigned task. Use the materials above for your own choices.

## Practice

Derive a nine-case expected table, then compare observed decisions and repair unsupported behaviour.

## Skill check

Exchange tables and independently verify permitted and prohibited actions.

## Transfer challenge

Apply the maintenance hold; preserve both tables and justify which expectation changed.

## Student record

**Named output: permission-audit.**

Keep both authority versions, expected and observed results for all nine combinations, repaired cells and reasons for each changed expectation.

Record your name/role, phase and scenario, prediction before action, evidence requested, result, decision, alternative and remaining uncertainty. Include assistance, format used and any physical-model limitation. Keep a failed attempt that explains a revision.

The investigation, experiment, agreement or revision is this week's practical output. A staged field handover is optional and cannot replace the reasoning record.

## Explanation — reveal after an attempt

A complete repair preserves useful operations as well as denying unauthorised ones. The transfer hold affects one cell: technician/service. Denying every action fails the published policy.

A facilitator judges the reasoning. The record's existence and the model's successful result do not by themselves establish learning.

## Reflection and later use

Which permitted action could a careless repair have broken?

A2 needs legitimate relay access. The digital final approach uses the appropriate local policy; physical handover does not gain an arbitrary software gate.

## Evidence and limitations

Save **permission-audit** with your explanation. Physical activities are proposed teaching designs, not hardware-tested equipment. Distinguish model-card results from actual measurements. Neither browser success nor paper completion establishes physical dexterity or classroom enjoyment. A dated station record is sufficient; a duplicate browser run is not required.